Police Or Military? We Would Do Well To Know The Difference

May 9, 2000|By Charley Reese of The Sentinel Staff

It's probably a good time to think about what appears to be a growing problem -- the militarization of civilian police agencies.

American police departments have always been semi-military, wearing uniforms and adopting ranks such as those used in the military. But there are crucial differences between police and the military that we ignore at our own peril.

The duty of the military is to close with and destroy the enemy. The enemy is anybody designated as an enemy by the government.

The duty of the police, however, is to uphold the rule of law, including the Constitution. This involves taking into custody fellow citizens whom they have probable cause to believe have broken the law. At the same time, these presumed law-breakers, under our system of government, retain a presumption of innocence until they are convicted in a court of law, and they have lots of rights that must be respected. A designated enemy of the military, of course, has no rights, least of all a right to life.

A second major difference involves training. The most valuable characteristic of a police officer, in addition to courage, is judgment -- the ability to evaluate a situation and act in an appropriate manner. Police training should be directed to helping police officers develop this ability.

Military training, however, attempts to extinguish individual judgment. The goal of military training is to so indoctrinate the soldier that he will respond automatically, even robotically, to orders. That's because quite frequently those orders will involve the soldier getting killed or maimed, and the last thing an Army wants is a bunch of soldiers trying to think for themselves in a combat situation. In the military there is only one value -- accomplishing the mission regardless of the cost.

A third key difference is psychological conditioning. It is not natural for a human being to kill another human being. To overcome this natural reluctance, the military will try to condition the soldier to dehumanize the enemy.

It is much easier to kill if you think of the person as an object, not as a human being who has a name and parents and possibly a wife and children.

I don't believe that any police department is employing that kind of conditioning, but it can occur on its own if people get into the habit of referring to people as dirtbags or scumbags or other such dehumanizing epithets.

Politicians contribute by using the rhetoric of war when describing what are actually civilian programs. The "war" on drugs is a prime example. The entertainment industry that is engaged full-time in distorting reality also contributes to this conditioning.

It isn't just truth that is the first casualty of war. It's morality itself, and it is not a good idea to encourage police officers to think of themselves as being in a war. The police officer is, in fact, engaged in upholding the rule of law, ideally in a calm, objective manner so that he does not view criminals, or alleged criminals, as his personal enemies.

The best law-enforcement officers I have observed have had an uncanny ability to be both firm and alert but at the same time courteous in making arrests.

I have seen officers talk a man, wanted for a serious crime, into surrendering a weapon and himself without resistance. Trust me: You don't do this by screaming obscenities at the suspect.

I have great respect for local law enforcement and mention this only as a cautionary note. Special Weapons and Tactics teams need to be especially careful of not over-training to the point of extinguishing individual judgment.